6.3 Power relation between Bolivian NGOs and the Bolivian state
6.3.3 Cooperation between NGOs and the state through Nelson’s six dimensions
NGOs that had a “professional” or technical cooperation with the state, stated that they did not see why the Law of Legal Entities No. 351, should affect them. They stated, as presented earlier, that they had a professional cooperation with the state, and since they were not politically engaged, they did not think the cooperation with the Norwegian NGOs would affect their work. This view was also presented in other interviews with some of the other partners to SAIH and NPA. The informants in MANB stated that they have a permit from the state for their work, and that they work within the legal regulations the state has put on foreign NGOs working in the country. Bolivian NGOs that did not have a direct cooperation with the Bolivian state, or were not clear supporters of the MAS political party, stated that they were more concerned that the government had introduced the Law of Legal Entities No.
79 351, and feared that it would be easier to criminalize NGOs, especially NGOs that criticized the government, and pointed to the Vice Presidents threat to the four national NGOs that had been accused of hidden political work. The NGOs stated that The Law of Legal Entities No.
351 would make it easier for the state to find flaws with the NGOs, or to put sanctions on the NGOs if they had activities that they did not have planned and presented the plans for beforehand. Some of the NGOs thought the TIPNIS conflict was a trigger for the government to look more into NGOs, and to easier convict the NGOs that “have a hidden political agenda”. Hilhorst (2007) states how NGOs have a tendency to accuse each other for being
“fakes” to secure funding. Her claim is that classifying NGOs as fakes is not a neutral occupation, but a political (Hilhorst, 2007, p. 305). My analysis is that it’s not the NGOs that accused each other of being fakes, but rather the Bolivian state, when Vice President García Linera accused the four national research NGOs for not being “non-governmental” when they received funding from foreign donors, and therefore could not be acknowledged as “non-governmental” or neutral in their critiques (García Linera, 2015).
By introducing the Law of Legal Entities No. 351 the state can easier control which national NGOs that receives foreign funding, and look more into them. As García Linera states in his letter to the 42 academics that were concerned about the state restrictions on NGOs, he stated that since the four NGOs received funding from foreign NGOs and governments, and got involved in politics, that was against the interest of the Plurinational state of Bolivia. He further claimed that the neoliberal project has destroyed rights, resources and social partnerships all over the world, and that this type of involvement is not welcomed in Bolivia (García Linera, 2015). NGOs receiving funding from so-called “neoliberal donors” could therefore risk trouble from the Bolivian state, and were accused of being “fakes” or “non-governmental”. Informants within almost all the Bolivian NGOs stated that organizations that support the government can get more advantages both socially and politically than organizations that are more critical to the government.
It is clear that NGOs that supports the government have privileges other NGOs do not have, it is just how it is (Informant, Bolivian NGO, 3).
I guess we get more advantages since we support the government, but that is how it has always been (Informant, Bolivian NGO, 6).
It is logical that NGOs that are critical are not on the good side of the government, and those NGOs that support the government gains from it (Informant, Bolivian NGO, 7).
80 The NGO that work towards civil society questions, and did not support the government, was concerned that they could be forced to end their cooperation with the Norwegian NGOs, while the others that had a technical cooperation with both their Norwegian partner NGO and the Bolivian state stated that it could happen, but they saw it is very unlikely. NGOs that tried to stay “apolitical” stated that they were concerned about the development in Bolivia if it involved that NGOs that were critical to the government would get more sanctions or restrictions.
Nelson (2007) states that NGOs will try to connect with donors or the state at least at one or more of the dimensions of their organizational work (Nelson, 2007, p. 95). NGOs that had many connections to the state were not worried, while NGOs with few connections were generally more worried. Especially the NGOs that had a political cooperation to the state, either through political allegiances or human relationships, did not see any problems with their cooperation with foreign NGOs.
While it is clear that the Bolivian state has a much stronger position and has more power now than earlier, it does not seem to threaten all the NGOs, especially the once supporting the government or those that connect with the state in more than one of the dimensions of their work. My analysis is that social movements and NGOs that have supported Morales for several years have gotten empowered in the process, and can be seen as actors that control the structure (the state). By introducing the Law of Legal Entities No. 351, the Bolivian state demonstrates its power over NGOs and how the structure can control the actions of the actors, especially actors that are critical to the government. NGOs that are critical of the government, and does not link to the state through more than one of the six dimensions, fears what the new law involves for their further work and cooperation with foreign NGOs. Neither the NGOs that had a “technical” cooperation with the state, nor the NGOs and social movements that cooperated with the state through the “interpersonal”, “political” nor “value-and mission” dimensions saw how or why the Law should affect their cooperation with the Norwegian NGOs. While NGOs with a “technical” connection to the state generally saw the law as more problematic, the NGOs and social movements with cooperation on other dimensions saw the problem with the law. Tvedt (2009) state that it is important to be aware that not all the actors within the development process are equally powerful or powerless (2009, p. 35). The larger social movements organizations that had supported Morales and MAS throughout the years, had gained more power in the process as well. This was however not the case for every organization or NGOs, even though they supported the government.
81